I will admit I have a tendency to interrupt others… men, women, dogs, cats, birds. Not that I’m excusing this rude impolite behavior, but I think I interrupt people because I’m passionate about what I want to say. I find that if I don’t say something right away, I lose my chance and more importantly my train of thought. I recognize this problem and I’ve been taking slow steps to try to minimize my interruption of others. I wonder if people notice it.

But anyways, due to the recent Senate hearings, a number of interesting things are coming out… like the interruption of Kamala Harris when speaking. I find this fascinating because I recently heard about a study that women get interrupted by men more often as a sign of power. And yes, it even happens to the female Supreme Court Justices! Do you remember this? Interruption at it’s “finest.”

So Bernie Sanders made news that was surprisingly negative. Reading about it here and reading other articles got me thinking… Was Bernie wrong to pursue such line of questioning?

To me, more politicians need to hold other politicians accountable. The way I see it, if a nominee considers himself Christian first and doesn’t view other religions with “equal” respect, how do we as citizens know that the decisions this nominee makes are neither tainted with a religious view nor considered as religiously blind? In my mind, what Bernie wanted to do was to ensure that this nominee wouldn’t be using his religious convictions to implement policy in a “religiously blind” government.

On my opinion, it’s like abortion. The whole abortion issue boils down to the fact that a religious viewpoint is disguised as a political viewpoint of “every life is precious.” Yet the irony to me is, we have forgotten veterans, unwanted homeless, and even hungry families that are ignored by these religions. The life of these people are just as important as that of an embryo, yet religious leaders don’t make a big fuss out the forgotten.

I don’t know what to say. Reading this Wired article should leave EVERYONE confused at exactly what is going on politically. The same statements are interpreted in two widely different viewpoints based on political ideology. Seriously all this bullshit?

I found this fascinating recorded conversation of Jack Ma (the founder of Alibaba) at the World Economic Forum on Youtube.

An interesting note is his idea of what else we could do with a fraction of the money US spent on the past wars. I’ve always believed that the spending on US industrial military complex is much too big and far more benefits can be obtained if some of that money is spent on infrastructure, education or even healthcare. Specifically, certain unwanted programs that Congress passed but Pentagon doesn’t want. Read it here, here, here, and here.

If even just one of these wasteful programs gets redistributed to infrastructure, education or healthcare, how much better would the US citizens be? They would be JUST as safe with a better environment to live in.

So Season 5 of House of Cards is out on Netflix. Some people have probably already finished it. I’m still in the middle of the season. With the events happening in the TV show, it got me wondering… how would political podcasts interpret the poll results and election outcome?